The Clinic filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in December 2023 against Delaware County on behalf of Catskills-based newspaper The Reporter. The suit claims that county officials violated the paper’s constitutional rights in de-designating it as an official paper and in issuing what has amounted to an illegal gag order for county employees. Read The Times Union coverage of the suit here and Cornell Law School’s coverage of the suit here.
NEWFANE, NY – On June 21, 2023, Cornell Law School’s First Amendment Clinic filed a lawsuit in Niagara County Supreme Court on behalf of Tracy Murphy, animal rights activist and founder of Asha’s Farm Sanctuary in Newfane New York. The suit, an Article 78 petition, challenges a gag order Newfane Town Court Justice Bruce Barnes imposed on Murphy restricting her First Amendment rights while she awaits trial on a misdemeanor larceny charge stemming from a dispute over the ownership of two cows.
The gag order imposes a blanket ban on Murphy’s use of any form of social media – which the order defines to “specifically include Facebook and public billboards, etc.” – while the criminal case against her is pending. Murphy’s suit challenges the gag order on several grounds, including that the gag order is an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech in violation of the First Amendment, that the order is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the order violates New York bail laws.
“The ability to interact with others on social media – whether that be through ‘liking’ posts, commenting, or perusing timelines – is critical to the exercise of First Amendment rights in the modern day,” said First Amendment Clinic Summer Fellow Eman Naga. “By blocking Murphy’s ability to use social media and express her views publicly, the gag order effectively strips Murphy of her voice. It also sets a dangerous precedent for other criminal defendants to be unlawfully silenced, too – regardless of whether they share Ms. Murphy’s views about animal rights.”
“Asha’s Farm Sanctuary is founded on spreading hope and love,” stated Murphy. “The gag order is inhibiting my ability to do just that, as well as my ability to fundraise for the Sanctuary and advocate for myself and the animals I care so deeply about helping.”
“The Supreme Court has made very clear that blanket gag orders like the one Ms. Murphy challenges are unacceptable under the First Amendment,” said Christina Neitzey, Stanton Fellow at the First Amendment Clinic and counsel for Murphy. “Courts cannot pick and choose who gets to enjoy free speech rights based on factors like politics and personal lifestyle differences. For the First Amendment to mean anything, we must all have these rights—vegans and ranchers alike.”
Murphy is represented in this suit by Neitzey, assisted by Clinic Summer Fellows Naga and Karem Lizbeth Herrera. The matter is pending in Niagara County Supreme Court as Murphy v. Barnes, Index No. E180218/2023.
Murphy is represented in the parallel criminal matter by Chris Carraway with the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, Wayne Hsiung of Direct Action Everywhere, and Bonnie Klapper, former federal prosecutor and current member of the Direct Action Everywhere Legal Team. Murphy’s criminal defense team previously challenged the same gag order before Justice Barnes, as well as an earlier version of the gag order Town of Somerset Justice Pamela Rider imposed at Murphy’s arraignment.
* * *
Contact: Christina Neitzey, cn266@cornell.edu, 607-255-4196
Last month, Cornell Law School’s First Amendment Clinic and co-counsel Greenberg Traurig LLP finalized a settlement agreement which allows citizen journalist James Meaney of Geneva, New York, to stand by his investigative reporting on local construction company Massa Construction, Inc. This agreement resolves a lawsuit Massa brought against Meaney and his watchdog blog The Geneva Believer nearly three years ago.
The suit centered around a series of articles in which Meaney examined — and at times criticized — the City of Geneva’s public works bidding and record keeping procedures generally, and the relationship between Massa and the City specifically.
Massa appealed two 2021 Ontario County Supreme Court decisions which dismissed Massa’s suit and awarded attorneys’ fees to Meaney’s legal team to the New York State Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The matter settled after briefing was complete on the appeals, but prior to oral argument before the Fourth Department.
Neither Meaney nor The Geneva Believer made any payment to Massa as part of the settlement. Meaney and his legal team maintain that —as Supreme Court, Ontario County, found — Meaney’s coverage of Massa contained no false statements of fact, alleged or implied. Remaining details of the agreement are confidential.
“Citizen journalists like Jim Meaney are exactly who anti-SLAPP laws are intended to protect,” said Christina Neitzey, Stanton Fellow in the Cornell First Amendment Clinic. “We are relieved that, through this settlement agreement, Jim can stand by his reporting and put this matter behind him.”
“I am deeply thankful that this case has reached a resolution,” said Meaney. “If it weren’t for the countless hours of tireless, pro bono work by the Clinic’s exceptional team of students and attorneys, and by Greenberg Traurig, my case would have had a very different outcome. Citizen journalists like me who lack the resources to mount a free speech legal defense against deep-pocketed entities are extremely fortunate to have the Cornell First Amendment Clinic ready to help.”
Meaney was represented by Michael Grygiel of Greenberg Traurig LLP, along with the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic’s Stanton Fellow Christina Neitzey, Clinic Director Mark H. Jackson, former Clinic Associate Director Jared Carter, former Clinic Associate Director Cortelyou Kenney, and former teaching fellow Tyler Valeska. Former First Amendment Clinic students Corby Burger, Michael Mapp, Rob Ward, Kasper Dworzanczyk, and James Pezzullo also contributed.
Cornell’s First Amendment Clinic filed a groundbreaking lawsuit in federal court in Idaho against the Idaho attorney general, county prosecutors, and others challenging the state’s law restricting public and school libraries from making constitutionally protected literary works available to minors. The Clinic is representing the Donnelly, Idaho Public Library District, public school librarian Christie Nichols, two parents, two students, the Big Five publishers, Sourcebooks, bestselling authors Malinda Lo, David Levithan, and Dashka Slater, and the Authors Guild. Under the law, classics like Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five and Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye have been stripped from bookshelves, alongside award-winning young adult best-sellers like Jandy Nelson’s I’ll Give You the Sun and Stephen Chbosky’s The Perks of Being A Wallflower.
The complaint against the bill known as HB 710 alleges that the law is vague, overbroad, and viewpoint discriminatory in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Clinic argues that HB 710 targets works that are purportedly “harmful to minors” according to vague and overbroad definitions provided by the statute. HB 710 also fails to incorporate the Supreme Court’s holding in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), which defines “obscenity” in accordance with the First Amendment.
The complaint points to the law’s problematic definition of “minors,” which includes all individuals under the age of 18. According to the complaint, this broad grouping fails to recognize that certain works of literature that may be deemed inappropriate for the youngest of minors may be appropriate and of significant value to the oldest of minors.
The complaint also alleges that HB 710 expressly targets works that contain “any act of homosexuality,” including non-sexual acts like handholding and hugging between two characters of the same gender. According to the complaint, such a blatant restriction constitutes a violation of the First Amendment and the and Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The complaint also targets a unique feature of HB 710 that permits both state law enforcement and private citizens to bring legal challenges against schools and libraries that fail to restrict minors’ access to materials deemed “harmful to minors.” Private citizens that file complaints against such schools or libraries receive a $250 award if they are successful in their challenge.
With numerous government officials and ordinary people deputized to enforce HB 710, public libraries and schools statewide have undertaken drastic self-censorship measures to protect themselves from liability. The threat of a possible lawsuit prompted one plaintiff, the Donnelly Library, to transition to adults-only. The Donnelly Library is a one-room library serving a small rural town; it is functionally unable to cordon off all books that could potentially be considered “harmful to minors” under the vague, overbroad definition provided by the state. Another plaintiff has been instructed by school district officials to remove nearly 40 books from her school’s library to preemptively avoid book challenges and lawsuits. In Eagle, Idaho, book challenges brought by a private citizen have likewise prompted the city’s public library to re-shelve twenty books and remove three from circulation, so they are unavailable to minors without signed parental permission.
While the ongoing harm of HB 710 is being felt by libraries and the communities they serve, authors and publishers who produce many of the books that have been or are at risk for restriction have also suffered, unable to bring their messages to their target audiences in Idaho.
According to Michael Grygiel, an adjunct professor with the Clinic, “HB 710 is an affront to the Constitution and is causing libraries and librarians to self-censor by removing classic works of literature from library shelves across Idaho to protect themselves from liability under the law’s vague and overbroad provisions. This type of self-censorship is inimical to First Amendment liberties and has suffocated the rights of Idaho students to read age-appropriate books of their choosing. It is a privilege to represent the publishers, authors, libraries, parents, and students who have joined this lawsuit to challenge HB 710 and stand up for the First Amendment rights of all Idaho citizens.”
Already, major media outlets like the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian have covered the case, attesting to its significance and the growing threat of book censorship laws nationwide.
According to Grygiel, the plaintiffs will move to enjoin enforcement of the law and put an end to this effort by the state to silence voices they disapprove of in violation of the Constitution.
Clinic students Celina Rivernider ’26, Paul Janes ’26, Alex Strohl ’25, and Johanna Li ‘26 worked on the case. The case was supervised over the summer by former Stanton Fellow Christina Neitzey Hernsdorf and continues under the supervision of Stanton Fellow Daniela del Rosario Wertheimer and adjunct professor Michael Grygiel. Deborah Ferguson serves as local counsel for the matter.
The First Amendment Clinic filed a brief of amici curiae in December in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools in the Sixth Circuit supporting two middle school students who were punished for their in-school political speech. Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (“FIRE”), the students sued their Michigan school district for forcing them to remove sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon,” a phrase that has become a rallying cry for some conservative voices across the country.
The District Court for the Western District of Michigan, holding that school administrators had “reasonably interpreted” the phrase as “profane”, determined that the school’s action against the students did not violate the students’ First Amendment rights. The students appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision is now pending.
The Clinic represented a group of First Amendment legal scholars—Erwin Chemerinsky, Clay Calvert, Roy Gutterman, Mary-Rose Papandrea, and Joseph A. Tomain—in arguing that the Western District of Michigan failed to apply the proper constitutional standard in rendering its decision. Specifically, the brief argues that by deferring to the school’s interpretation of a popular political phrase as “profane,” the district court improperly ignored the test established by the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
In Tinker, the Court held that a school may only prohibit student expression in the school environment that communicates a political message when the expression creates a “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.” The scholars’ brief pointed out that school administrators in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools acknowledged that the students’ “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts caused no such disruption, so the school could not have satisfied the Tinker test even if it had been properly applied.
The scholars also made the case that other Supreme Court precedents limiting student free speech rights were inapplicable in this instance due to “Let’s Go Brandon’s” non-profane, political nature.
Under the supervision of Adjunct Professor Michael Grygiel and Stanton Fellow Daniela del Rosario Wertheimer, Clinic students Lexie Kapilian ‘26, Alex Strohl ‘25, and Robert Plafker ’25 worked to develop and write the amici brief over the course of the fall 2024 semester.
According to Grygiel, “It is particularly essential in today’s polarized climate that the free speech rights of public school students are protected when their expression does not result in a disruption to the school environment. Our students’ work underscored the basic First Amendment principle that when political beliefs – regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum – are communicated without using profanity, they are protected.”
Settlement records that our Clinic and co-counsel Paula Knudsen Burke at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have successfully unsealed on behalf of the Bucks County Courier Times demonstrate that prison healthcare contractor PrimeCare Medical and Bucks County have paid out $3.8 million to settle wrongful death claims involving allegations of inadequate healthcare at the Doylestown jail in recent years.
These records should never have been sealed in the first place because the public has a right to know what the government is doing with the public’s money and about any shortcomings in the healthcare provided to some of Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable citizens.
Read more about our unsealing efforts here.


NEW YORK, N.Y. – Streetsblog NYC, represented by the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic, filed a groundbreaking lawsuit last week against the New York City Department of Transportation, alleging that DOT systematically violates the state’s Freedom of Information Law by forcing nearly everyone who seeks public records to wait six months before receiving any responsive documents.
The lawsuit asks the New York Supreme Court to issue an injunction directing DOT to end its practice of imposing uniform, half-year-long delays that prevent the public from finding out, in a timely way, what its government is up to.
The suit seeks to enforce the basic purpose behind FOIL — to promote an open and democratic government by giving everyone the right to request documents from state agencies. As long as requested documents do not fall into one of the law’s narrow exemptions, the agency is required to provide them — and it must do so in a timeframe that is reasonable under the circumstances of the individual request, typically within 20 days.
The lawsuit alleges that Streetsblog has filed dozens of FOIL requests with the department since 2021, and each one of them has faced a nearly identical, six-month delay. According to the complaint, Streetsblog requested a copy of the DOT Commissioner’s official calendar from a single day. DOT said it would take 187 days to respond. The complaint further alleges that Streetsblog requested DOT’s phone or email directory, and the agency again said it would take 187 days — and then it ended up missing its own deadline. In another instance, according to the complaint, Streetsblog asked for a copy of a single contract, which it identified by contract number. DOT said its response would take 182 days.
“By imposing a six-month blanket delay in response to every one of our client’s requests, DOT is obviously making no effort to determine what a reasonable response time would be for each request,” said Michael Linhorst, the Clinic’s Local Journalism Attorney. “They are regularly flouting the clear requirements of the law.”
Relying on public data, the complaint alleges that Streetsblog is not alone. According to the complaint, out of all the requests that DOT received between June 2021 and August 2024, the department gave itself an average of 182 days to respond. Almost every single request — more than 98 percent of them — was delayed by longer than 170 days.
“This case is important not just to Streetsblog but to scores of reporters around the city whose ability to inform the public depends on receiving timely information from government officials,” said Gersh Kuntzman, editor of Streetsblog. “By routinely delaying virtually every Freedom of Information Law request, the Adams administration effectively delays coverage of its actions so long that it becomes less newsworthy compared to whatever story of the day reporters are chasing.”
By filing this lawsuit, the Clinic is seeking to establish new legal precedent. While such “policy or practice” cases are widely accepted in federal litigation regarding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), New York courts have not yet recognized the claim under FOIL.
“Policy or practice claims give federal FOIA teeth,” said Evan Deakin ’25, a Clinic student who worked on the complaint. “If these claims are recognized under New York FOIL, agencies will no longer be able to use delay to circumvent the law’s requirement that government records be available to the public.”
The lawsuit, Kuntzman et al. v. New York City Department of Transportation, is now pending in the New York County Supreme Court.
In addition to Linhorst and Deakin, Clinic students Andrew Brockmeyer, Sophia Gilbert and Cameron Misner and alumna Fernanda Pires Merouco worked on the lawsuit and the legal arguments behind it, with supervision from Heather Murray, Managing Attorney of the Clinic’s Local Journalism Project.
Contact:
Michael Linhorst, Local Journalism Attorney at the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic, at MML89@cornell.edu

In April 2024, Cameron Misner ’24 (pictured center) argued before a five-judge panel at the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in an important free speech case. Cameron argued that his clients – all of whom are involved in Central New York’s metal core music scene – should be awarded attorneys’ fees for their defense against a meritless defamation suit that aimed to punish them for warning others in their music community about a colleague’s alleged sexual misconduct. Evan Deakin ’25 (left), Danielle Mimeles ’24 (not pictured), and JD exchange student Yael Iosilevich (not pictured) also worked on the case.


In April 2024, Cornell First Amendment Clinic student Sabrina Palacios, J.D. ’24, appeared at an initial status conference in the Northern District of New York, earning her the distinction of being the first student to appear before Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric in nearly five years on the bench. Magistrate Judge Lovric welcomed future participation from Cornell students. The Clinic represents a Catskills newspaper in this case, which alleges that Delaware County officials violated the paper’s First Amendment rights when they revoked the paper’s designation as an official county paper in retaliation for the paper’s coverage and when the County Attorney issued a “gag directive” prohibiting employees from freely communicating with the paper’s staff. Ms. Palacios is pictured with case teammate Matthew Hornung, J.D., ’24, and Heather Murray, Managing Attorney of the Clinic’s Local Journalism Project. Not pictured: Teammates Evan Deakin, J.D., ’25, Iain Smith, J.D., ’25, Yifei Yang, J.D. ’23, Director Mark Jackson, and Adjunct Professor Michael Grygiel.

Clinic Director Mark Jackson and Local Journalism Project Managing Attorney Heather Murray recently published an Op-Ed in the Albany Times Union to amplify the efforts of journalist Janon Fisher to shed light on the judicial appointment process in NYC. While the trial court in the Clinic’s public records suit ruled that candidate applications for appointed judgeships must be released to the public with minimal redactions to shield private information, an appellate court late last year made it harder to hold power to account by overturning the lower court. Mr. Fisher has sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals with the Clinic’s assistance. The Court takes up only a small percentage of the requests to hear cases like ours, but we’re hopeful that ours will be one of them.
Thanks to the fantastic Clinic team that has contributed to work on this case thus far starting way back in 2021, including Ava Lubell, Christina Neitzey, Connor Flannery (who argued before both the trial court and the Appellate Division), Nyssa Kruse, Svetlana (Aika) Riguera, and Sun Shen.


Cornell First Amendment Clinic alum Connor Flannery ’23 argued in the Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, on February 26, 2023, seeking access to sealed settlement agreements on behalf of local journalism client The Patriot News/PennLive. The Clinic’s client seeks access to the settlement agreements in a wrongful death suit to shed further light on an issue of great public concern involving a young mother killed by an oncoming train as she was exiting a boat ramp in Halifax, Pennsylvania. Also pictured are Mr. Flannery’s supervising attorneys Heather Murray, Managing Attorney of the Cornell Local Journalism Project, Paula Knudsen Burke, Local Legal Initiative Attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Diane Siegel Danoff, a partner at Dechert LLP.

The Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic kicked off the Spring 2024 semester with another informative and inspiring Bootcamp. This Bootcamp treated five new Clinic students and ten returning students to three days of learning and discussion. Speakers included speaker Daniel Novack, Vice President, Associate General Counsel at Penguin Random House, on ongoing legal challenges to book-banning legislation; a panel of some of our stellar local journalism clients and co-counsel, including Teresa Bonner at Penn Live, Jo Ciavaglia at Bucks County Courier Times, Janon Fisher at Newsday, Paula Knudsen Burke at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and clinic alum Connor Flannery; Prof. James Grimmelmann on the ever-changing landscape of Internet-related First Amendment issues; and a panel of returning students Cam Misner, Sabrina Palacios and Matt Hornung on ways to get the most out of one’s clinic experience.
We are grateful to all our speakers for making this Bootcamp special, and we look forward to the semester ahead.



